On Apr. 23, 2003, the plaintiff, a woman above the age of 40, filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 621, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. §12203 against Sprint/United Management Company in U.S. District ...
read more >

On Apr. 23, 2003, the plaintiff, a woman above the age of 40, filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 621, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. §12203 against Sprint/United Management Company in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, sought to be reinstated to her former position, back pay of $75,000, front pay, lost fringe benefits, compensation for physical injury, pain and suffering, future medical, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other categories of actual damage, and $1 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff alleged that that defendant had engaged in a pattern and practice of age discrimination against her and others similarly situated such that it should proceed as a collective action under the ADEA. The plaintiff was terminated in a reduction in force (RIF) while working for Sprint Management Company. The plaintiff contended that Sprint, before and during the RIF process, routinely transferred younger employees (i.e., employees under the age of 40) to "safe" positions that would not be eliminated during the RIF.

On Apr. 19, 2004, the plaintiff moved for provisional certification to proceed as an ADEA collective action. On July 2, 2004, the court granted the motion for provisional certification. At this time, 119 individuals had already opted in to the collective action. The provisional certification defined the class as employees who were all terminated as a result of Sprint’s RIF occurring from Oct. 2001 through Mar. 2003; were subjected to the same “displacement guidelines” and “reduction guidelines” utilized by Sprint management in determining which employees to select for termination during the RIF; and were subjected to the same performance rating systems.

The plaintiff filed amended complaints on July 2, 2004, and again on Nov. 14, 2005.

On July 19, 2004, the case was consolidated with several other similar cases for the limited purpose of coordination of discovery.

The plaintiffs moved to have ten plaintiffs who had filed separate actions joined to this action; to add a disparate impact claim in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 544 U.S. 228 (2005); and to expand the definition of the class. At this time, the class comprised employees who, among other things, were terminated on or after Oct. 1, 2001 and who were assigned to job grades 71 through 79. The plaintiffs sought to expand the class to include those whose employment was terminated beginning in late July 2001, and to include “E grade” (executive level) employees.

Oral argument was held on July 26, 2005. On July 29, 2005, the court granted and denied the plaintiffs’ motion in part. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion with respect to the adding the disparate impact claim and denied the motion with respect to the other two claims. The motion to expand the class was denied on the grounds that it was untimely.

The parties entered mediation in 2006. On May 18, 2007, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of collective action settlement. On May 30, 2007, the court granted preliminary confirmation of the proposed settlement and appointed a settlement administrator.

On Sept. 11, 2007, Judge John Lungstrum approved the class settlement agreement. The settlement provided $57 million in monetary relief to the 1,697-member class previously certified under the ADEA. Specifically, the court found, based on the parties' joint filing, the court's knowledge of the record, and the hearing with the parties, that the terms of the Master Full and Final Settlement Agreement of All Claims ("Settlement Agreement") appeared to be "reasonable, adequate, fair, and consistent with relevant state and federal law and warrants notice thereof being given to the individual Plaintiffs."

On Oct. 15, 2009, Judge Lungstrum signed an order accepting the report of final termination of the settlement fund and dismissing the case with prejudice.

All non-executive, exempt (Grade 71-79) and non-exempt (Grade 38-41), former employees of Sprint who were a) terminated between October 1, 2001 and and March 31, 2003 and b) were age 40 or older on their last day of work